Is the New Deal Democratic Party dead?

[Joe Fields]

WTF? Rahm Emmanuel and Larry Summers? Both of these guys are anti-New Deal Democrats. Where is this party headed?

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. Newsflash: Yes.

[Joe Fields]

2. Question: if that's the case, what's the point of being a democrat?

[Ellen Forradalom]

26. You're not alone in asking yourself that question.

[tavalon]

54. Currently no other viable choices would be the most likely choice

In smaller races I always go third party but for the national stuff, I don't live in Bernie Sander's state so I get to vote Democrat.

[Ellen Forradalom]

37. Anglachel writes on this question.

"The ultimate shadow of Reagan is that you don’t win by defending losers, only by securing the interests of the winners."

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/09/where-shadows-lie.html

[Joe Fields]

49. I took the time to read that commentary. Very well written and insightful.

Thanks.

[Ellen Forradalom]

51. She's excellent

Take the time to poke around her archives. Very rewarding.

[katty]

88. yes - insightful - stated...

>To cut to the chase, the push in 2004 for a “Unity Party” has been realized with Howard Dean delivering the Democratic Party into the hands of the High Broderists who value unity for unity’s sake more than any other political cause or virtue. They don’t even want to claim to be part of their party, hoping people will forget and just vote for those nice clean, articulate fellas. This is part of internalizing the Reagan assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Party as such. Psychologically, to them, the Democratic Party is the remnants of the uneducated, racist, white South and rust-belt north, who vote for Bubbas like Clinton and reject above-partisanship technocrats and idealists like Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and Howard Dean himself. The nerve of them people! And thus, this year, we have the Unity Democrats, non-partisan to the end.

The dark underbelly of this move is the presumption that the people who have been told their interests must wait will always be there for the Democrats because we have nowhere else to go.

[Joe Fields]

110. Precisely, in response to your last line. Nowhere else for us to go.

I'm wishing there was another viable political party to turn to.

[Captain Hilts]

Different times call for different solutions.

FDR: Unfortunately, that's true.
ER: It's time for young people to take over.

[bobbolink]

8. right. It's time to kick poor folk over the cliff.

they've already voted, so they're last year's bacon.

Bye-bye.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Not at all.

[bobbolink]

15. Riiiight. We're on Sooooo many "priority" lists.

You stated it just right....

We're last year's bacon.

bye-bye....

[Selatius]

19. A lot of people were angered when Capitol Hill threw 700 billion at the banks.

They were angry for a reason. They were angry because deep down inside they knew that if they were in the same kind of trouble of facing bankruptcy, they would've been left with a devastated credit rating with effects that would last years. The bankers got the velvet glove treatment in comparison. and that pissed off many people.

It pissed me off.

[Captain Hilts]

22. You had every right to be pissed off. nt

[bobbolink]

23. That's middle-class.

[Selatius]

30. It still pissed me off, and I'm completely insolvent. I owe more money than I currently am worth.

I am by no means middle-class at all.

[bobbolink]

32. the issue is middle class.

Poverty is untouchable.

We're supposed to disappear.

And homeless...?

"Throw yourself over a cliff, ya bum."

I'm just amazed that "progressives" don't get the difference between middle-class issues and poverty issues.

[Joe Fields]

50. it amazes me, too, bobbolink.

Everything always comes down to money and influence. The homeless and poverty stricken cannot help politicians get elected or re-elected, therefore they are of no use or consideration. Even in San Francisco, the politicians have supported citywide sweeps of the homeless.

[bobbolink]

81. Thank you, Joe! NOW... we really need your help... we're left off all the lists of priorities.

We see the writing on the wall... everything will get attention and programs except US.

So, PLEASE, write and call your Reps.... send in an email to Obama, and strongly request MORE LOW-INCOME HOUSING!

If we don't have champions now, and people thinking of us and SPEAKING FOR US, it will only get worse.

How many deaths will it take?

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. Gavin Newsom, the same guy who helped kill civil unions and defeat Kerry

by media-pimping the gay marriage issue, thus helping derail the successful civil unions movement and killing the message of the 2004 campaign. Funny how Nader gets blamed for 4 years of Bush but a wealthy crypto-DLCer in SF doesn't get blamed for 4 more. Oh, and he beat a Green party guy for the mayor's race. If the Green had won, Kerry would be president and SF would be at the forefront of progressive issues instead of trying to distract the populace with symbolic gestures that only benefit a wealthy few.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. I agree bobbo, but assume Selatius was referring to the fact that they WOULD spend 700 bn

$$ on banks and not a dime for the poor -- whether they had enough posessions to declare bankruptcy or not.

I have been witnessing this trend locally with $$ for baseball stadiums and slot machines for quite a while.

Maryland just voted for slot machines all over the state to pay for schools (middle class and up, natch -- according to the DLC doctrine of "school reform" schools in poverty stricken areas will be closed and their students put out on the street, because providing services to those kids is not "cost effective" according to cap rates calculations -- their parents don't pay back enough in taxes to be worth spending money on; this is a concrete and mathematical policy they use to determine which policies to spend money on...) this will allow them to "balance the budget" meaning use all of their discretionary bond money to pay for an 8-lane (petroleum oriented) highway sought after by the most liberal residents.

Oh yeah, and 2 out of 3 counties in MD voted for both Bush and McCain.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Boy are you jumping to conclusions.

[bobbolink]

29. Yeah, poor folk are like that.

But, we really appreciate the derision.

[Renew Deal]

90. wow

Just wow.

[Donnachaidh]

9. don't have a problem with young people taking over

but Emmanuel and Summers DON'T fall into that category. They ain't NEW.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I'm no big fan of them either.

But Obama has a lot of people he has to placate on the Hill.

Progressives have to keep pressure on him or he'll go FISA on us.

[Joe Fields]

11. would you care to expand on that thought?

I would also like to know, that if you feel that way, what is it that separates you from your republican counterparts?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Fields]

40. bullshit alert.

I suppose that, if I tried, and not very hard, that I, too could have an entry in the Eleanor Roosevelt Encyclopedia. So what? That, and 2 dollars gets you a cup of coffee?

I am a student of history, and it was not the New Deal programs that will cause us to revamp our thinking, but rather the way that those programs have been purposefully undermined by administrations that are hell bent on getting rid of said social programs. When you empty the treasury to give tax cuts to the wealthy, then bloat a defense budget to bankruptcy proportions, then there is no money for viable social programs.

It wasn't the programs. It was a belief by those in power that they didn't want those programs, and would fix things so that we can't have them.

So now, on top of being glib, you tell me to fuck off because I call you on your glibness on such an important topic for democrats to reflect on?

You're a real jewel, Mr. self-important asshole.

[bluestateguy]

3. The New Deal Democratic Party of the 1930's? Yes it is dead.

This is Obama's Democratic Party and it is time for the New Deal 2.0. This is not the Industrial Age anymore.

[CatholicEdHead]

10. Yep, there will be some similarities but also some adjustments to the present

[Joe Fields]

24. Two anti-new deal corporatists.

These are Obama's first two decisions as president? And what becomes of all of the social programs under an Obama administration?

You can be glib, if you choose, but these are extremely important considerations, and one has to wonder, if these people are out to deconstruct the Rooseveltian New Deal Democratic Party and construct a new corporatist Democratic party, then just exactly what difference in ideologies do the two parties have?

More importantly, how does it sit with you? Are you comfortable having a Rahm Emmanuel screening everything and everyone who President Obama sees? If so, some self evaluation may be necessary.

[Captain Hilts]

27. Welcoming advice from Sam Nunn and Colin Powell and turning on FISA were clues...

he's a politician, not a progressive.

[bobbolink]

45. We're being told that everyone has to make sacrifices.. there will be pain..

I live in my car... what else should I sacrifice?

I haven't had enough pain?

And who's going to speak up for me????

[Zhade]

53. I will. But how do I do it?

NT!

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. Edwards would have, but TPTB ran him off early and made damn sure he wouldn't have a voice

politically ever again.

[Captain Hilts]

70. The press completely ignored him. The press chose Obama and McCain for us. nt

[bobbolink]

83. So, that's that? YOU can't speak up?

[bobbolink]

82. So? Can YOU speak up?

Or do we just say, "Oh well, we'll die" and let it go at that?

[SammyWinstonJack]

113. You know what, my husband just lost his job and we aren't that far away from being homeless

ourselves. I really don't expect anyone to speak up for us. :shrug: Because I know no one will. Isn't this a great Country? :sarcasm:

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. I will, bobbolink

Of course I am living out of a family member's house right now, but once I get back out on my own I'll probably be doing construction work.

[bobbolink]

84. Thank you! We need agitators on our side!

Bring this up everywhere you speak with people... hand them numbers to call to talk to their Reps and Senators.

Tell them to speak up to Obama.

Otherwise we will be forgotten even more than we are now!

Thanks, and best wishes to you!

:pals:

[tavalon]

55. Am I happy with it? Nope

Am I willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater? No.

[bobbolink]

85. that's EXACTLY what you're doing..... throwing out people.

YOU can speak up.

YOU CAN.

Will you?

Or will you be content to see US thrown out, and join in the throwing?

[tavalon]

106. I've spent my life working for poor people's equality

I'm not going to stop now, but neither am I going to join the circular firing squad first thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. Isn't it interesting how new meme is how Clinton / Reagan freed us from "industrial age" liberalism?

The horror of the "old, industrial age America with its working class jobs"

Thank god all that shit is made overseas now so well-paid socially "liberal" yuppies can pretend it doesn't take acres and acres of manufacturing to build all that cheap Chinese-made shit they buy at Christmas for their "post-industrial" mall-based economy.

[Generator]

93. Yes Rahm screening everything before Obama sees it

How ironic-given that Obama made such a point of saying he would listen to all sides. The "left" remember Obama sweetie-three days ago you were a socialist radical-remember us please!

[Joe Fields]

111. I thought that Obama said in his acceptance speech that...

there would be no retreads in his administration. That promise didn't last long.

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. So you are anti-manufacturing, then? Or do you just want all your shit made overseas?

[NoPasaran]

4. Since 1980 or thereabouts

Reagan killed it, a decade or so later Bill Clinton gave it a decent burial.

[Xenotime]

5. The party is heading for Change. haven't you heard?

[Romulox]

63. Right. It's "changing" into the (pre-fundie) Republican Party. nt

[katty]

91. interesting point, i've had that observation

[Oregone]

6. Yes, everyone is just happy they "won".

[AuntPatsy]

95. Of course there are those that are happy that we won but there are those and President

Obama is one of them that though happy that we won also stated Tuesday night November 4th in his acceptance speech with a clear and concise voice, no smile on his face that the work is only now beginning....he also stated in all seriousness that he 'alone'cannot ensure change happens unless 'we' the people stand up and help him...

For once we had a leader who stated that "We" the people were the government and that if we the people want change than we ourselves have to help and ensure that change is accomplished..

This is not the loony mindless idiot leader who screamed Mission Accomplished several months after Sept 2001 for all the world to hear knowing or perhaps not caring all that much that again, it was just the beginning..

Listen to our leader, he is listening to you but if you don't talk out loud how will he hear you?

[xchrom]

7. been that way for a while. nt

[Joe Fields]

28. Clinton tried to kill it off, but it looks like Obama's trying to finish the job.

[Selatius]

12. The New Deal Coalition splintered permanently after the 1960s.

Many rural conservatives who were Democrats left the party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ himself prophetically foretold that signing that bill meant signing away the south for a life time. He appeared to be correct.

The 1960s were a realigning period. The new era began in the 1970s and extends into today. Whether or not Obama will usher in a worthy successor to the New Deal coalition remains to be seen.

In order to pass significant pieces of legislation, the Democrats needed a large coalition such as the New Deal Coalition to do so, but after the 1960s, a large segment of that coalition disintegrated, and since then there hasn't been difficult progress at best on the passage of left wing legislation.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Hey! Citing history might confuse people here!

[Romulox]

64. This narrative doesn't explain the Democrat's abandonment of the industrial midwest, however. nt

[Captain Hilts]

92. Indiana and Ohio like to vote Republican. Beats me why. nt

[Romulox]

101. What about MICHIGAN? nt

[Captain Hilts]

102. Guns. nt

[Romulox]

107. Lame. nt

[bobbolink]

104. He won't "usher in" anything unless he's PUSHED.

That's not only politics.. he made it clear.

YET.... "progressives" won't PUSH for more New Deal - like programs, because poverty isn't "sexy".

:cry:

[upi402]

14. This is why I never gave a dime or lifted a finger

to help Obama. This is no surprise.

[GodlessBiker]

16. Dated reference lost on younger viewers. Time to move beyond 70 year-old politics.

[Joe Fields]

31. Quite a glib statement for such a serious issue for democrats.

Just what is it that you believe in? What is it that makes you a democrat?

[GodlessBiker]

41. I just think it is wiser to create a new political reality rather than relying on 70 year-old...

political categories. The young people who became so passionate about this election did not do so because of a promise to restore politics to the age of their great-grandparents. Time to move on. Time to create new realities, coalitions, terminology, and promise.

I think it is only a "serious issue" for some Democrats because that is as far back as the collective memory will go (primarily because those who might remember anything earlier are dead). If Democrats start talking about restoring the "New Deal" or bringing back that coalition, we might as well start calling President-Elect Obama "Old Hickory," as a hearkening back to the wider political participation of people under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president.

I am a Democrat, not because of a 70 year-old tradition, but because I have found that today's Democratic Party is more likely to support the governmental policies I would like to see enacted.

[bobbolink]

86. Exactly. POverty is only important to Dems now when they want the votes.

Before and after elections... we're disposable.

Glib, indeed.

:cry:

[Cerridwen]

36. Dated reference lost on younger viewers who don't know the history

of their party or why it matters 70 years later.

Please, keep repeating history of the industrial age in the 21st Century because 70 years later humans have evolved to the point where continually hitting one's thumb with a hammer no longer causes pain.

[otherlander]

46. Please.

This is the first election I've ever been old enought vote in and even I know what the New Deal was.

[brentspeak]

52. The issue is policy, not politics

New Deal-type policies are the primary reason I'm a Democrat; continued DLC/corporate policies are what might drive me out of the party, save for supporting a few Democrats here-and-there.

[Joe Fields]

59. That's where I'm at right now.

Many of us dems didn't get the memo that a new world order meant a whole new set of core democratic beliefs. I am not a fan of the new paradigms. I like the old democratic party. It made me feel much cleaner.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. This is AMERICA, Goddamnit. We don't LEARN from history, we look BEYOND it!

We create our OWN reality. We print our OWN wealth.

We extract our OWN ample raw materials and collect the profit from cottage industry goods manufactured in overseas dependent territories, just like the British and the Athenians did. We certainly don't need dated references to old "liberal" ideas. The new liberalism is strictly a social attitude. The new democrat is a wealthy (top 20% professional class) yuppie.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Right. We're sooo past all that hunger, poverty and inequality stuff. It's been rendered quaint. n/t

[dflprincess]

18. You're not really surprised to see Obama appointing DLC types are you? (nt)

[Joe Fields]

34. You know what? I suspected it. I even warned against it during the primaries.

During the presidential campaign I kept quiet, taking a "wait and see" approach. Now, less than twenty four hours after becoming elected, he is doing just what I thought he would do.

[Dover]

58. If this turns out to be the case I would expect (at least at DU) that there

will be one excuse or finger wag after another and nothing more.
Kind of like the response to the long line of Dem Congressional disappointments.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. If that turns out to be the case,

somehow it will be the Progressives' fault. We weren't loyal enough. :eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

76. I am very amused by all the folks here shouting about Clinton being a DLCer...

are now completely okay with Obama's turn on FISA, welcoming the support of Colin Powell and appointing DLCers.

How naive!

[Individualist]

21. Yes.

It has been the DLC party for several years now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. They were very clever in how they used Obama to worm their way back into the party. Dean 2.0

"We need a Dean!"

I'm happy to see the historic aspect of the candidate they chose to beat McCain,
but for similar reasons as Joe Scarborough -- albeit from the left.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Joe study history and who and what was appointed by FDR?

they were not precisely paragons of the liberal wing of the democratic party.

We have heard language about the New Deal 2.0

So I suspect the party is just changing and pragmatism will win in the end

I don't like Rahm either, but he is a very good DC operator and you need that kind of an operator to get the Congress to act.

Here it is

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/509263/Franklin-D-Roosevelt/277413/Cabinet-of-President-Franklin-D-Roosevelt

Cordon Hull was not quite a liberal if you get my drift

And so it goes.... every very succesful administration in a crisis gets people appointed due to abilty, not ideology

Get ready, I expect a couple Rs in the cabinet, even in important positions, when all is said and done

[Captain Hilts]

38. FDR's closest aides, Hasset, Steve Early, "Pa" Watson were all very conservative.

FDR pretty much ignored Cordell Hull after appointing him. Churchill felt weird that he'd come to DC and not had a sit down with the Sec. of State. FDR operated through Sumner Welles, whose resume featured being a boyhood chum of Eleanor's brother.

Ickes, Wallace and Eleanor - the ex-Republicans - were the most liberal around him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I know that, you know that... but the problem is that most folks

don't even realize that the legislation didn't happen in a hundred days, or that legislation passed in the first hundred days sucked ass

It took longer, than just a hundred days.

And it cost a lot of money... in today's moneys 12 T... adjusted for inflation, by my estimation... last time I did the back of the envelope exercise.

Our New Deal will not look at all like the 1930s... even if some programs should come back in-toto (WPA comes to mind)... but others really have no place in the modern world, or have one after they are heavily modified

As is people do not understand that the industrialization level of the US today is not that different than oh 1931... though for different reasons

Are we talking too much inside baseball here? And I mentioned Cordell since today he's better known by most folks, blame tora, tora, tora for that.

:-)

[Captain Hilts]

44. I was branded a Republican further up for saying today's legislation will, inherently, be different.

People here don't know much history.

Thanks for your post.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. You welcome

most people don't know some of the issues FDR had with certain minorities either

:-)

No, not blacks, jews

Again even more inside baseball

never mind Henry Morgenthau was... the first to serve at a cabinet level if memory serves

[Captain Hilts]

69. "Mostly Morgenthaus" is one of THE best books about the era.

It is a CRIME the visitor center in Hyde Park was named for Henry Wallace, who trashed both FDR and ER in later years. It should have been named the Morgenthau center to honor the several generations of progressive Morgenthaus.

Hell, HM, jr. even slept with FDR!

Eleanor's friendship with Elinor is always undervalued - like that of her relationship with her secretary - because they saw each other so often there isn't much correspondence.

[Joe Fields]

42. no need to be extremely patronizing.

Maybe it's the teacher in you.

I AM a student of history. Are you going to deny that the democratic party of the last 60 years was not made in the likeness of three FDR administrations and the Camelot years? Most of the alphabet programs that are still around are products of the New Deal society. Most rank and file democrats identify with that brand of governance. If the democratic leadership no longer stand for those ideals, if we no longer are willing to insure help for the less fortunate, or give families an opportunity to send kids to college, or provide Head Start for low income families, then what exactly do we stand for as a party?

There is a major disconnect here, between party leadership and party members.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. This is a transformative election, even perhaps a one in a generation

which is what FDR was... and to a point JFK

In fact, it was LBJ that destroyed that coalition that lived under the New Deal... and the beginnings of the modern conservative movement were built on the shoulders of the many mistakes and moral decisions made by LBJ... the beginning was Nixon... problem is that the New Deal left the realm of history and entered the realm of national legend a while ago.. with I cannot tell a lie Washington, and the Alamo.

In fact there are more parallels to the 1920s today, as in a culture war, just as bitter and long fought, and that came to its end in the depression

That said... it is not being patronizing to point out that the next four to eight years will look very different from FDR, for good reasons.

I expect some of those programs... no, not the big ones... a few to come back... in a new form Nobody will call the new WPA, well WPA... nobody will call a newly formed Social Security, yes I expect that one to be transformed and saved, social security... and I do expect the new administration to do exactly what the FDR administration did... do what it needs to do, regardless of ideology.

And as much as FDR is the hero of the left, he ran as a centrist... yet another parallel

And I hate to point this out... but to the younger generation of democrats... new deal? WTF is that? And for that I blame all of us.

Now the ironic thing is that Right Wing Overreach will bring another "socialist revolution" like it did back then... not that modern conservatives know what socialism is... for that matter most americans don't

And if I sound condescending... well this man was a centrist, far from my first or second choice, but the economic meltdown showed me more about his mettle as a leader and a calming presence and it was good what I saw... another parallel to FDR.

I don't believe in god... haven't for a long time... but twice in the history of the country to get men who are cool, calm and collected... you could almost say that is providence ... (Eat it lurking freepers)

[leftofthedial]

43. dead as a doornail.

Workers of America, you have no party. No one is on your side.

"Middle class" apparently is a euphemism for corporate drone.

[Greyhound]

79. Yes, "corporate drone" sums it up. Sit down, do as you're told, don't complain,

and never, ever, forget that you are imminently (and inevitably) replaceable.

We will eventually figure it out, I just hope when we do it isn't too late.

[Dover]

57. Yes. That was essentially what Kevin Phillips said when interviewed by Moyers >

BILL MOYERS: You wrote in that AMERICAN PROSPECT piece that some people, particularly in the reform community and among progressives, see this as a great opportunity for returning to the New Deal regulatory period instigated by Franklin Roosevelt in the pits of the Depression. You don't think that's happening.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I mean, there's several difficulties here. First of all, at this point, what you've got are the Democrats are the party right at this point that's getting most of the financial money. When Franklin D. Roosevelt won in 1932, we know he wasn't getting most of the financial money.

The second thing is I don't think we're more than partway through. The Democrats think it's going to be another 1933, they get in there, they can do all the New Deal stuff. My feeling is that they're coming in halfway and they're going to have to make hard decisions that are going to eat the Democratic coalition like a bologna sandwich. They're going to start civil wars-

BILL MOYERS: How come? What do you mean?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, if you're going to bail out Wall Street while you're saying oh, the Social Security recipients, maybe they don't even need that money. A lot of people in the financial community basically want to push Social Security on some sort of voluntary basis and needs test it and get rid of it. Now, a lot of Democrats in the labor movement are very nervous about Obama. They put out press releases talking about Rubin-nomics because they see that the flesh of the Democratic Party carries a lunchbox. But the new soul of the Democratic Party wears a pinstripe suit.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/bill-moyers-kev.html


And he wasn't optimistic that Obama was free of these financial strings.

[Leopolds Ghost]

60. Larry Summers Deputy went on PBS (This American Morning) to expose support for Gramm deregulation

Larry Summers and Robert Rubin were the main voices for ending the New Deal, LEGISLATIVELY, AND THEY DID.

Summers was Gramm's inside man advocating for overturning Glass Steagall and allowing
Citibank and Nationsbank to ILLEGALLY aquire other companies (which is the Bush agenda,
remember -- using the bailout money to buy other financial institutions, making those
megacorps bigger than the Federal Government) with inflated stock dollars by changing
their name from "bank" to "banc"

...a year before the Gramm act got passed retroactively legalizing their actions (shades of FISA, anyone?)

THEY ILLEGALIZED THE NEW DEAL and ENDED the Great Society when they passed the HOPE VI,
Welfare Act, and Gramm Deregulation act which is why the New Deal is no longer an issue for Democrats.

So, um... yeah. Will we see Campaign Finance Reform? No, because Dems are now in favor
of maximizing private dollars - a bad trend that favors the upper middle class where
it previously favored the merely rich, so now it's OK. Will we see return of Glass Steagall?

That would require breaking up Citigroup, which would be "far-left wacko communism"
according to the ruling class media (and Dem) elite. (Buying billions in Citigroup
preferred stock to buy other companies and pay bonuses is sensible centrism, or more
accurately Toryism -- the new religion of the neocons and neolibs who are drifting
across party lines to remain in power.)

[Romulox]

62. Furman and Goolsbee already revealed that Obama was an adherent of status quo, neoliberal economics.

[Joe Fields]

65. Thanks for reminding everyone about this.

If so many here on this site aren't aware of the actions of these people, if they don't know just who it is exactly that is leading us, then how many 'average' democratic voters would know about these men?

[Romulox]

61. The Democrats have replaced the Republicans as the Center/Right party

There is a desperate need for a populist party to fill the vacuum created by the Party's rush to the Right.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. I'm all for it, let's see what happens if the Republican coalition splits...

Populist movement does no good if it allows the fascists to sieze power, but it has to exist and be waiting in the wings and implicitly providing conditional support to the ruling party, like the civil rights leaders did.

[bobbolink]

89. DESPERATE NEED is right!

Look at this table by a homeless grass-roots organization... the "left" talks about homelessness even less than the corporate media!

http://homelessnessmarathon.org/2008/09/has-american-left-taken-historic-wrong.html

The chart below was compiled by entering terms into the search engines of various media and then recording how many “hits” they generated. This provides an imprecise but nonetheless helpful measure of how much attention these media paid to various issues. The figures are all from searches performed on 1/9/07.


Time TheNation DN ComDreams Truthout M.Jones NYTimes

Abortion 3649 1010 245 2910 2770 1466 20,221
AIDS 20,371 971 222 2980 1620 1529 33,459
Cuba 4586 440 433 2900 2300 312 16,383
Gaza 1711 345 662 2290 1640 217 8821
Haiti 1257 181 369 934 932 131 8796
Hamas 852 192 360 1330 1420 205 3716
Healthcare 1010 411 9040 9496 45 714 9986
Human
Rights 3700 1709 48,000 10,500 9777 40,905 13,263
Homeless-
Ness 72 18 325 212 319 3573 163
Racism 1720 222 1720 736 280 10,474 1599
Sadr City 667 138 785 180 2504 681 161
Windpower 247 39 1510 759 8364 46,485 3147
WTO 511 200 3610 987 11,273 67,163 2843

As anyone can see, there isn’t much difference between the left media and the mainstream media in terms of priorities. At The Nation, there were 13.5 hits on “AIDS” for every one on “Homelessness,” at Democracy Now there were 12.3, and at the New York Times, there were 9.4. At Commondreams.org there were 4.1 hits on “Hamas” for every one on “Homelessness,” while at Truthout.org there were 6.7 and at Time there were 5.2 (only Mother Jones had more hits for “Homelessness” than for “Hamas.”).

On the surface, at least, the millions of Americans who become homeless every year would seem to be just as unimportant to the left as they are to the powerful corporate oligarchs who control most of our nation’s media. But what kind of social justice movement doesn’t care about the poorest of the poor? At the Homelessness Marathon, we think that’s a question worth asking.

[JCMach1]

67. Obama is a CENTRIST

You expected something different?

[Romulox]

68. Deregulation, free trade and the Wall Street bailout are RIGHTWING positions, not "Centrist".

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Having read the actual bill I KNOW that the bill has many elements

of VERY EARLY New Deal Legislation

Oh never mind

That said, it will not be implemented the same way... history NEVER EVER repeats 100%

[Romulox]

103. I know you aren't comparing the bailout bill to the New Deal.

Aside from the fact that "the bill" was only obliquely mentioned, attempting to defend the bailout bill (of which as much as 50% is earmarked for Wall Street bonuses and "dividends" to shareholders) by comparing it to the New Deal, couldn't have been on your mind!

Because aside from being a non-sequitur, that would also be shameless.

But I can see the world is too much with you. Nevermind indeed! :rofl:

[theboss]

77. It's been dead for 35 years

The New Deal Party was a fusion of Southern Whites and Norhtern union workers. Southern Whites are now the entirety of the Republican Party and Northern union workers barely exist at this point.

[Joe Fields]

78. I disagree.

The New Deal party wasn't a faction of the Democratic party. It WAS the Democratic party. When you ask democrats why they are democrats, they will cite chapter and verse the New Deal doctrine.

I guess most of us just didn't get the memo.

[theboss]

80. Ok...so let's restart the TVA

Parts of the New Deal are sacrosent - SSI being the main one.

But a lot of it was built on conditions in the 1930s. I would hope that our policy ideas have evolved somewhat.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. That's what Larry Summers said about Glass-Steagall, a crucial piece of New Deal legislation

Designed to do two things:

1. Prevent consolidation of the banking industry

2. Prevent rampant speculation inflating the cost of equities causing another crash and cash shortage depression

Guess what happened after they repealed it.

Guess why Summers and Gramm wanted it repealed... and allowed banks to change their name in order to illegally
circumvent the aquisition regulations for a year before it was repealed, in anticipation of citibanc's and
nationsbanc's actions being legal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. Congress makes law, lean on them. n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

105. Carroll Quigley, secret government, etc:

From Tragedy & Hope:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

[Orsino]

108. You can't have a New Deal until you have a Depression.

We're still trying to hold this machine together with duct tape and prayer, and that means relying largely on the Devil You Know. Until things get a lot worse, the voices that rule the party will remain familiar ones.

Personally, I'm pleased that Rahm will be on a short leash. I think we'll find that this was a smart choice.

[book_worm]

109. The "New Deal" dem party ended with LBJ in 1969

[Joe Fields]

112. You and I may be talking about two diferent entities here.

When I talk about the democratic party here, I include all registered members of the party.(excluding party leadership)

If you are talking about party leadership, then I can agree to an extent, but if you mean the whole party, then I strongly disagree.

[mwei924]

114. The New Deal Democratic Party included the racists. So no, it's totally dead.

[Romulox]

115. Newsflash: the status quo Corprocrats include many, many racists as well.

How many times have you heard Rahm Emanuel or Larry Summers decry the racist for-profit prison industry, for example? :hi:

[Captain Hilts]

116. That's why FDR would not speak out in favor of the anti-lynching bill. nt